arxiv: v1 [physics.hist-ph] 17 Jul 2018
|
|
- Katrina Hubbard
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Elements of Reality in Quantum Mechanics Geoff Beck School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand (Dated: July 18, 2018) arxiv: v1 [physics.hist-ph] 17 Jul 2018 The notion of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) element of reality is much discussed in the literature on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Recently, it has become particularly relevant due to a proposed criterion of the physical reality of a given quantum mechanical observable [A. L. O. Bilobran and R. M. Angelo, Europhys. Lett. 112, (2015)]. We examine this proposal and its consequently related measure of non-locality [V. S. Gomez and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 97, , (2018)] and argue that the criterion is ill-described as quantifying physical reality without introducing serious inconsistency with the basic notions of realism that under-gird enquiry. We agree that this reality criterion demonstrates, along with the famous GHZ results, that general quantum observable values make for poor elements of reality. However, we also argue that this does not mean no such elements of reality are to be found in quantum theory. By arguing for, and adopting, probability distributions as these elements of reality instead, we demonstrate that the criterion of physical reality is actually one of observable predictability. We then examine the relationship of realism-based non-locality to the Bell form and find that, despite the flawed premise, this measure does indeed codify non-locality that is not captured by Bell inequalities. I. INTRODUCTION The discussion of elements of reality may seem like pure philosophy without any operational relevance. However, it is much discussed in recent physics literature on quantum theory (see [1 7] for prominent examples). Additionally, [8] proffers a quantitative criterion of the physical reality of a quantum observable. The measure put forth is heavily couched in the language of quantifying whether observables are elements of reality in the sense invoked by the EPR paper [9]. This is further used in [10] to produce a measure of non-locality that is sourced from how much the reality of quantum observables is affected by distant measurements. This is of some significance, as it is known that quantum systems can exhibit non-locality that is not captured by the Bell inequalities [11 13] or similar measures of this phenomenon. Thus, it is important that the premises of these measures of reality and non-locality are interrogated to determine whether they actually quantify what they claim to. The aforementioned criterion of reality asks the operational question: how definite was the value of the observable A given a state preparation ρ? If A had a predetermined value then it has reality 1, if it has spectrum of values with assigned probabilities then it has reality < 1. This therefore assigns the designation element of reality to any value of a quantum observable that can be predicted with certainty, particularly this applies to actual measured values. Intuitively this seems reasonable as quantifier of reality, as perhaps the most basic commitment of scientific realism is the idea that there is a pre-existing world that can be interrogated by our measurements 1. Therefore, if some quantity is not predefined prior to measurement then it is not completely real. This agrees with the EPR definition as well, as elements of reality are physical quantities that can be predicted with certainty with disturbing the system in question. Thus, the measure from [8] is claimed to extend a reality criterion to mixed states as well eigenstates of observables. Following this line of reasoning we see that a general quantum state may have no real properties at all until it is measured and some observables obtain real values. This follows in the foot steps of the famous GHZ scenario [14, 15], in which it is shown that measurement of a system of three entangled qubits is inconsistent with the notion that all of spin values for each axis and qubit were pre-assigned by state preparation. We can see the commonality with [8] in that real properties emerge from interaction with quantum systems (like measurement). In the GHZ case this can then be construed as a refutation of the idea of the EPR [9] element of reality [16]. Despite their use of the EPR criterion it is hard to avoid the same argument for [8], as we are similarly lead to conclude that for any general scenario real properties emerge from the interaction of quantum systems rather than being pre-existent. This tension with the EPR criterion does far more than these arguments want to deliver, as it is a tension with the notion of some underlying pre-existent reality, which undermines the very basis of scientific enquiry. Stated as baldly as this, the over-reach of claiming that some reality quantification demonstrates that real properties can only emerge from interaction with quantum systems and that therefore the state corresponds to no elements of reality itself becomes almost paradoxical. As one must immediately ask why the real properties that emerge from interaction with geoffrey.beck@wits.ac.za 1
2 2 a given state have statistical predictability if the state itself possesses no real properties until measured? It seems then that by showing that values of observables do not generally correspond to elements of reality it is concluded that the EPR definition has failed, but the persistence of the predictability needed by the EPR criterion should give us pause. Perhaps, if a quantification of reality is inconsistent with some basic realism, that must indeed premise its quantification, then it was not quantifying what we believed it to be. Thus, the premise of this article is to study the notion of the physical reality of quantum observables as presented by [8] and to show that by assuming elements of reality are assigned to measured observable values it only succeeds in quantifying the predictability of those observables. In addition to this it will be shown that the GHZ result does not provide the grounds for a wholesale rejection of EPR elements of reality in quantum mechanics, contrary to the argument in [16]. This argument is built upon the notion that all of these claims about reality are actually claims about classicality, and that the conflation of these two explains the inconsistency with scientific realism outlined above. It is argued that the very fact we can predict the GHZ outcome with certainty immediately undermines the claims of a failure of the EPR criterion. The probabilities of measurement outcomes in quantum mechanics are then put forward and demonstrated to posses all the necessary properties of an EPR element of reality. The failure of observable values as general EPR elements of reality stems from the elementary observation that only statistical objects could fulfil this role in quantum theory as this explicitly statistical formalism cannot be used to infer the ontological status of non-statistical objects [17]. This serves to undermine any claims about quantifying the reality of observables, reducing the conclusions of[8] to showing that observable values ontological status is outside of the scope of the quantum formalism and what they quantify is purely observable predictability. The failure of the central premise of the non-locality criterion of [10] requires us to examine what it is actually measuring. Despite the shaky foundation, it is shown that it does indeed quantify non-locality that it not captured by the Bell inequality as claimed by the authors of [10]. However, the relationship discussed in [18] is reduced to a trivial one of a complementarity between predictability and information. The argument is presented as follows: in section II we discuss the criteria presented in [8, 10] and examine some simple unintuitive consequences that they represent. In section III we discuss what properties of quantum systems can actually have their ontological status inferred from empirical measurements and argue that the EPR element of reality is alive and kicking in section IV. We then proceed to examine realism-based non-locality in section V. Our conclusions are summarised in section VI. II. THE REALITY OF OBSERVABLES The measure of the physical reality of an observable presented by [8] is criterion based upon whether the value of a given observable was predefined by the preparation of the state ρ. To be more concrete they imagine a situation where ideal state tomography is being carried out on a prepared stated ρ. However, before the state can be measured it is intercepted and has an observable A measured without the result being revealed. Thus, the state being measured is in fact φ A (ρ) = a a a ρ a a, (1) where the sum runs over eigenvalues a. The irreality of A given ρ is then defined as I(A ρ) := S(φ A (ρ)) S(ρ), (2) with S being the von Neumann entropy. This quantity is non-negative and vanishes only when ρ = φ A (ρ). Thus, it will always vanish if the state ρ is an eigenstate of A. In agreement with the EPR criterion, eigenstate preparations are always elements of reality, but this also attempts to generalise beyond this and quantify the reality of mixed states as well. This criterion is premised, as is apparent, on the idea that observable values become real once they have been measured. It is immediately apparent that I will be < 1 for many choices of mixed state ρ. Thus, for a general quantum state, observables like A will not constitute elements of reality (in agreement with the GHZ results [14]). We might then be tempted to compare the reality of quantum versus classical physics, with the perplexing result that classical observables are elements of reality but quantum ones are not in general. This suggests that despite being more fundamental than classical physics, and thus more ontologically real, quantum mechanics references no general elements of reality. This is inconsistent with any basic notion of scientific realism, and with the idea that classical physics is a derivative reality sourced from something more fundamental. Alternatively, we could argue that the notion of elements of reality is actually invalid, and that reality results from the interaction of quantum systems. However, although this sounds more sophisticated than the preceding argument these both seem to be easily restated with classical substituted for real without losing anything in the process. This suggests that we should be cautious of the use of I as irreality, as this may well be misleading. However, I does characterise the degree to which we can predict the value of an observable A. Of additional importance are the cases in [8], where it is shown that observables for non-separable systems are not maximally real and that this is also true for simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables. These cases are instructive as they suggest that I may in fact be a measure of the classicality of an observable.
3 3 As the principle cases in which irreality is to be found are those where the quantum and classical mathematical formalisms diverge. This is reinforced when we note that in classical physics both theoretical predictions of statistics and individual observable values can be compared to empirical results and thus can be tested for some ontological value. However, in the quantum case this option is not available. This is because all quantum predictions stem from an inherently statistical formalism and it is elementary that no statistical premise may lead to a non-statistical conclusion. This simple line of argument immediately suggests to us that quantum mechanics cannot operationally quantify the reality of of a given observable, only the reality of associated statistics. So in asking a quantification of the predictability of an observabletoactasameasureofrealityweareinherently demanding that reality behave classically. In order to examine this issue in more detail we must proceed to study what properties of a quantum system can actually have their ontological value determined. That is, we must ask the question of what properties of quantum systems will the success or failure of experimental tests reflect upon. This question is necessary as these are the only quantities that can reasonably satisfy the EPR definition and qualify as elements of reality. III. PROPERTIES OF QUANTUM SYSTEMS Quantum mechanical observables do not constitute well behaved elements of reality, as evidenced both above and by the GHZ experiment. Thus, the notion of an element of reality should be disposed of, quantum properties are not pre-determined and result from interaction with the system itself. This argument seems to be robust, but there is a crucial twist that we need to follow, we implicitly assumed that only the values of the observables themselves can constitute the properties of quantum system. Without this assumption it is no longer clear that we are forced to reject the existence of elements of reality, perhaps it is simply that values of quantum observables do not constitute these elements within the evidently statistical framework of quantum mechanics? This argument should especially be suggested to us by the fact that the GHZ outcome is predictable with certainty, surely something real must under-gird this happen-stance? Clearly the EPR definition has not been truly disposed of. We should expect this, asthecriterionisanalytic[19], andtodeclareitdoes not apply at all in quantum mechanics must also throw out the root notion of scientific realism: that there is some independent reality to interrogate. What has happened then is that the element of reality that allows the GHZ result to workat all, rather than output subjective gibberish, is not the individual value of observables within quantum theory. This problem should be expected, as there is, in general, no measurement that can be made on a quantum state ρ whose correspondence with prediction would depend upon the ontic status of the value of an observable A. In other words, quantum mechanics predicts statistical patterns to the behaviour of quantum states and thus by comparing observed and predicted outcomes of experiments we determine whether outcome probabilities p(a A,ρ) have any basis in what is real. If these probabilities had no correspondence to an underlying reality then this would be revealed by their failure to match the observed statistics. Furthermore, probabilities obviously cannot be tested by singular statements of measurement. Thus, within the framework of quantum mechanics there is no singular measurement of an observable A that depends upon the correspondence of the value of A with some underlying reality. For this to occur, we must be able to derive non-statistical conclusions from statistical premises [17]. Simply put, the theoretical formulation of quantum mechanics makes it clear that the definiteness of values of observables A cannot be consistently used as criterion of what has ontological value within the quantum paradigm. This does not necessarily imply values of A are irreal, merely that there is no such information within the quantum formalism. This is then what we learn from both the work of [8] and GHZ, rather than grand claims about the nature of reality. The eagle-eyed reader has already spotted that this argument seems to fail for GHZ cases, as their central importance is that they are one-shot measurements that do not require us to accumulate statistics. However, the notion of the one-shot measurement needs some careful attention. To elucidate it consider the classical example ofthe pressureofagas which we can predict through statistical physics. This is a one-shot measurement, but the success of our predictions reflects upon our statistical assumptions about velocity distributions of particles in the gas. Even though, barring error analysis, we did not need to accrue statistics, we did not avoid the fact that all we were testing was the validity of our statistical assertions. The same is true for the GHZ case, as the outcome prediction arises directly from the same quantum mechanical formalism that predicts probabilities, we did not step outside the states and amplitudes framework and use a separate apparatus to produce results that were premised on the validity of individual observable values. Thus, we are still implicitly testing our statistical assertions about the behaviour of quantum states, regardless of whether the measurement required us to accrue statistics or not. IV. ELEMENTS OF REALITY REBORN We have seen in the previous sections that observables are not generally adequate as elements of reality in quantum mechanics. This does not mean, however, that such elementsarenot tobe found. An obviousquantitythatis predictable with certainty without disturbing the state of a system is provided in the form of the probability distri-
4 4 butions for outcomes of the measurement of a given observable A, p(a A, ρ) (which relates closely to the claims in [1 7] of the quantum state encapsulating all relevant elements of reality). A reader might point out that the EPR criterion clearly specifies a physical quantity and thus might question whether p(a A, ρ) could satisfy this requirement. To clarify this we can consider an illustrative classical example, that of a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution. Such a distribution can be used to predict the properties of an approximately ideal gas. Were the distribution not, in some way, a statement of the physical properties of the gas itself this would not be possible without some violation of physical law or other miracle. Thus, it is argued that objects like p(a A, ρ) could not be used to predict outcome frequencies, and thus observable averages, unless they were in some way reflecting physical properties of the system represented by the state ρ. Significantly the quantities p(a, b A, B, ρ) are mutually definable with the same certainty regardless of whether or not A and B commute. More importantly, their representation of physical properties is easily inferred from their predictive success, unlike individual measurements of A or B, as argued above. A reader might also be unsatisfied by the fact that these probabilities are not the properties of an individual electron for instance. But rather, the properties of an electron within a given situation. Once again we stress the analogy to the statistical properties of a gas, pressure for instance requires the presence of a confining force but is still determined by the internal physical properties of the gas itself, despite the additional dependence on the external situation. This is no different to the observation that a classical particle behaves differently in different potentials, but, knowledge of these potentials can be used to deduce the internal properties (mass and charge) of the particle itself from this behaviour. These internal propensities to respond to external influence are also what we extract in analogous quantum situation. They are merely all the information available within the structure of quantum theory, as this structure codifies what we can seek to measure when testing the theory. The choice of p(a A,ρ) as the elements of reality is important, as it does not lead us to conclude quantum mechanics is less real than the classical case or require us to conflate real with classical. This is because the statistics inferred from quantum mechanics will have more predictive success and thus can be seen as unambiguously more real. This clearly establishes that neither a criterion for the reality of observables, or the abandonment elements of reality establish a consistent/workable idea of realism in the same manner as adopting p(a A,ρ) (and perhaps ρ itself) as the elements of reality. Moreover, it clearly demonstrates that conflating the predictability of observables with their reality, without a careful examination of the theoretical formalism, leads to deep inconsistencies. Thus, the quantification from [8] is not a criterion of reality at all, we are forced to stop at criterion of predictability. V. REALISM-BASED NON-LOCALITY Having established what [8] actually quantify, we must now turn to the extension of this work to quantifying non-locality that stems from quantum measurements influencing the reality of observables. This is the realismbased non-locality of [10]. In short, if we envisage a scenario with two entangled sub-systems each prepared in state ρ and sent to be measured in a space-like separated arrangement. An additional system is prepared in a known state and allowed to interact locally with only one of the sub-systems prior to measurement, with the new state now being Φ B (ρ) in this subsystem. The nonlocality in question is then whether the reality of an observable A has been changed in the sub-system that did not suffer the local perturbation. This is quantified by I(A,B ρ) = I(A ρ) I(A Φ B (ρ)) (3) In the preceding section with established that I was in fact a measure of predictability of observables, rather than their reality. So we are now equipped to see what I(A, B ρ) actually tested. This is evidently the effect of distant measurements on the predictability of measurement outcomes, or whether p(a A,B,ρ) = p(a A,ρ) under these conditions. This provides a more relaxed test for the effects of non-separability than a Bell inequality, which demands a correlation in p(a) and p(b) that exceeds what is possible under a hypothesis of local causality. The quantity I instead informs us of any non-separability related correlation between the outcome probabilities, as for separable states I 0 so separable correlations will perforce be ignored. This means that, despite the flawed premise of the reality criterion, the non-locality measure does indeed capture aspects of nonseparability that are not captured by the Bell inequality as claimed by the authors in [10]. This has consequences for other work based on[8], such as[18] where a complementarity between information and the reality measure of observables is discussed. With the arguments presented here we can see that this relationship is reduced to triviality, as it is evident that there is a complementarity between Shannon information [20] measures and predictability of the observables encoding this information. VI. CONCLUSION In this work we examined whether cases which quantify the reality of observables in quantum mechanics [8, 14] actually reflect in some way upon the underlying ontological situation. It shown that, because quantum mechanical predictions are inherently based upon statistical assumptions, that only statistics can have their ontological
5 5 status inferred from the success or failure of quantum mechanical predictions without introducing contradictions with basic tenets of scientific realism. This means that [8] does not in fact quantify the reality of observables but merely their predictability (which also a more easily operationally defined property). However, despite the failure of the underlying premise, the non-locality measure proposed in [10], based on [8], does indeed quantify non-locality not captured by Bell inequalities. This nonlocality, however, is not related to the reality of observables at all, merely how their predictability varies as a result of non-separability. In addition to this, we refute arguments that we should discard the idea of elements of reality in quamtum mechanics, or that no such elements can exist, by demonstrating that probabilities assigned to various outcomes satisfy all the necessary requirements and do not result in any clashes with notions of scientific realism. [1] M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, Nature Phys. 8, 475 (2012). [2] P. G. Lewis, D. Jennings, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, (2012). [3] R. Colbeck and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, (2012). [4] L. Hardy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 27, (2013). [5] M. K. Patra, S. Pironio, and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, (2013). [6] M. S. Leifer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, (2014). [7] J. Barrett, E. G. Cavalcanti, R. Lal, and O. J. E. Maroney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, (2014). [8] A. L. O. Bilobran and R. M. Angelo, Europhys. Lett. 112, (2015). [9] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935). [10] V. S. Gomez and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 97, (2018). [11] A. A. Méthot and V. Scarani, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 157 (2007). [12] T. Vidick and S. Wehner, Phys. Rev. A 83, (2011). [13] S. Camalet, Phys. Rev. A 96, (2017). [14] D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990). [15] J. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, M. Daniell, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 403, 515 (2000). [16] N. D. Mermin, Phys. Today 43, 9 (1990). [17] K. Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (Unwin Hyman Ltd., 1982). [18] P. R.DieguezandR.M. Angelo, Phys.Rev.A97, (2018). [19] T. Maudlin, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, (2014). [20] C. E. Shannon, Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379 (1948).
The nature of Reality: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in QM
The nature of Reality: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in QM Michele Caponigro ISHTAR, Bergamo University Abstract From conceptual point of view, we argue about the nature of reality inferred from EPR
More informationCounterfactuals in Quantum Mechanics
132 Counterfactuals in Quantum Mechanics Counterfactuals in Quantum Mechanics Lev Vaidman Counterfactuals in quantum mechanics appear in discussions of (a) nonlocality, (b) pre- and post-selected systems,
More informationCounterfactuals in Quantum Mechanics arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 4 Sep 2007
Counterfactuals in Quantum Mechanics arxiv:0709.0340v1 [quant-ph] 4 Sep 2007 February 1, 2008 Counterfactuals in quantum mechanics appear in discussions of a) nonlocality, b) pre- and post-selected systems,
More informationLocality and simultaneous elements of reality
Locality and simultaneous elements of reality G. Nisticò and A. Sestito Citation: AIP Conf. Proc. 1508, 487 (2012); doi: 10.1063/1.4773170 View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4773170 View Table of
More informationHardy s Paradox. Chapter Introduction
Chapter 25 Hardy s Paradox 25.1 Introduction Hardy s paradox resembles the Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, discussed in Chs. 23 and 24, in that it involves two correlated particles,
More informationA proof of Bell s inequality in quantum mechanics using causal interactions
A proof of Bell s inequality in quantum mechanics using causal interactions James M. Robins, Tyler J. VanderWeele Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health Richard
More informationBell s inequalities and their uses
The Quantum Theory of Information and Computation http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/activities/quantum/course/ Bell s inequalities and their uses Mark Williamson mark.williamson@wofson.ox.ac.uk 10.06.10 Aims
More informationMGP versus Kochen-Specker condition in hidden variables theories
arxiv:quant-ph/0211049v2 29 Jan 2004 MGP versus Kochen-Specker condition in hidden variables theories Claudio Garola Abstract Hidden variables theories for quantum mechanics are usually assumed to satisfy
More informationClosing the Debates on Quantum Locality and Reality: EPR Theorem, Bell's Theorem, and Quantum Information from the Brown-Twiss Vantage
Closing the Debates on Quantum Locality and Reality: EPR Theorem, Bell's Theorem, and Quantum Information from the Brown-Twiss Vantage C. S. Unnikrishnan Fundamental Interactions Laboratory Tata Institute
More informationClassical Bell s Inequalities. Vesselin C. Noninski
Classical Bell s Inequalities Vesselin C. Noninski vesselin.noninski@verizon.net Abstract An example of a classical system violating Bell s inequalities is discussed. Existence of a classical system violating
More informationQuantum mysteries revisited again
Quantum mysteries revisited again P. K. Aravind a) Physics Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609 Received 30 April 2002; accepted 21 May 2004 This paper describes
More informationEPR Paradox and Bell Inequalities
Chapter 24 EPR Paradox and Bell Inequalities 24.1 Bohm Version of the EPR Paradox Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) were concerned with the following issue. Given two spatially separated quantum systems
More informationEPR Paradox and Bell s Inequality
EPR Paradox and Bell s Inequality James Cross 2018-08-18 1 Introduction The field of quantum mechanics is practically synonymous with modern physics. The basics of quantum theory are taught in every introductory
More informationMeasurement: still a problem in standard quantum theory
Measurement: still a problem in standard quantum theory R. E. Kastner August 20, 2013 - xarqiv Abstract It is argued that recent claims by A. Hobson that there is no measurement problem are based on taking
More informationSuper-Quantum, Non-Signaling Correlations Cannot Exist
Super-Quantum, Non-Signaling Correlations Cannot Exist Pierre Uzan University Paris-Diderot laboratory SPHERE, History and Philosophy of Science Abstract It seems that non-local correlations stronger than
More informationLogical difficulty from combining counterfactuals in the GHZ-Bell theorems
Logical difficulty from combining counterfactuals in the GHZ-Bell theorems ABSTRACT Louis Sica 1,2 1 Chapman University, Orange, CA & Burtonsville, MD, USA 2 Inspire Institute Inc., Alexandria, VA, USA
More informationHas CHSH-inequality any relation to EPR-argument?
arxiv:1808.03762v1 [quant-ph] 11 Aug 2018 Has CHSH-inequality any relation to EPR-argument? Andrei Khrennikov International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, Engineering, Economics, and Cognitive
More informationProof of absence of spooky action at a distance in quantum correlations
PRAMANA cfl Indian Academy of Sciences Vol. 59, No. 2 journal of August 2002 physics pp. 295 301 Proof of absence of spooky action at a distance in quantum correlations C S UNNIKRISHNAN Gravitation Group,
More informationQuantum Physics & Reality
Quantum Physics & Reality Todd Duncan Science Integration Institute (www.scienceintegration.org) & PSU Center for Science Education Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it. -
More informationA history of entanglement
A history of entanglement Jos Uffink Philosophy Department, University of Minnesota, jbuffink@umn.edu May 17, 2013 Basic mathematics for entanglement of pure states Let a compound system consists of two
More informationA Superluminal communication solution based on Four-photon entanglement
A Superluminal communication solution based on Four-photon entanglement Jia-Run Deng cmos001@163.com Abstract : Based on the improved design of Four-photon entanglement device and the definition of Encoding
More informationResponse to Wiseman, Rieffel, and Cavalcanti on Bell s 1964 Paper
Response to Wiseman, Rieffel, and Cavalcanti on Bell s 1964 Paper Edward J. Gillis October 6, 2016 Abstract Wiseman has claimed that Bell was wrong in stating that determinism was inferred rather than
More informationEinstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell s inequalities
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell s inequalities Jan Schütz November 27, 2005 Abstract Considering the Gedankenexperiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen as example the nonlocal character of quantum
More informationLocality and the Hardy theorem
1 Locality and the Hardy theorem ARTHUR FINE But this conclusion [nonlocality] needs careful discussion in order to clarify what is going on. (Redhead 1987, p. 3) Within the foundations of physics in recent
More informationQuantum mechanics and reality
Quantum mechanics and reality Margaret Reid Centre for Atom Optics and Ultrafast Spectroscopy Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia Thank you! Outline Non-locality, reality and quantum
More informationIntroduction to Bell s theorem: the theory that solidified quantum mechanics
Introduction to Bells theorem: the theory that solidified quantum mechanics Jia Wang Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, 930 N. University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (Received November 30,
More informationTopic 3: Bohr, Einstein, and the EPR experiment
Bohr, Einstein, and the EPR experiment http://www.wuthrich.net/ MA Seminar: Philosophy of Physics Hilbert spaces Barrett, The Quantum Mechanics of Minds and Worlds, Appendix Quantum states are represented
More informationSinglet State Correlations
Chapter 23 Singlet State Correlations 23.1 Introduction This and the following chapter can be thought of as a single unit devoted to discussing various issues raised by a famous paper published by Einstein,
More informationLogical difficulty from combining counterfactuals in the GHZ-Bell theorems
Logical difficulty from combining counterfactuals in the GHZ-Bell theorems Louis Sica Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866; and Inspire Institute Inc., Alexandria, V2303, USA E-mail: lousica@jhu.edu In
More informationAnalysis of non locality proofs in Quantum Mechanics
Journal of Physics: Conference Series Analysis of non locality proofs in Quantum Mechanics To cite this article: Giuseppe Nisticò 01 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 343 01088 Related content - On the completeness
More informationMeasurement Independence, Parameter Independence and Non-locality
Measurement Independence, Parameter Independence and Non-locality Iñaki San Pedro Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU inaki.sanpedro@ehu.es Abstract
More informationDoes the ψ-epistemic view really solve the measurement problem?
Does the ψ-epistemic view really solve the measurement problem? Shan Gao Institute for the History of Natural Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China. E-mail: gaoshan@ihns.ac.cn. September
More informationQuantum Information Types
qitd181 Quantum Information Types Robert B. Griffiths Version of 6 February 2012 References: R. B. Griffiths, Types of Quantum Information, Phys. Rev. A 76 (2007) 062320; arxiv:0707.3752 Contents 1 Introduction
More informationCSCO Criterion for Entanglement and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
CSCO Criterion for Entanglement and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle J. Y. Zeng 1, Y. A. Lei 1, S. Y. Pei, X. C. Zeng 3 1 School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, 1871, China Department of Physics,
More information3/10/11. Which interpreta/on sounds most reasonable to you? PH300 Modern Physics SP11
3// PH3 Modern Physics SP The problems of language here are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms. But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language. Recently:.
More informationDeep Metaphysical Indeterminacy
Deep Metaphysical Indeterminacy Bradford Skow Abstract A recent theory of metaphysical indeterminacy says that metaphysical indeterminacy is multiple actuality. That is, we have a case of metaphysical
More informationVARIATIONS ON THE THEME OF THE GREENBERGER-HORNE-ZEILINGER PROOF
VARIATIONS ON THE THEME OF THE GREENBERGER-HORNE-ZEILINGER PROOF arxiv:quant-ph/98080v1 13 Aug 1998 Lev Vaidman School of Physics and Astronomy Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences Tel
More informationThe Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment and Bell s theorem
PHYS419 Lecture 0 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment and Bell s theorem 1 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment and Bell s theorem As first shown by Bell (1964), the force of the arguments
More informationThe controlled-not (CNOT) gate exors the first qubit into the second qubit ( a,b. a,a + b mod 2 ). Thus it permutes the four basis states as follows:
C/CS/Phys C9 Qubit gates, EPR, ell s inequality 9/8/05 Fall 005 Lecture 4 Two-qubit gate: COT The controlled-not (COT) gate exors the first qubit into the second qubit ( a,b a,a b = a,a + b mod ). Thus
More informationLecture 4. QUANTUM MECHANICS FOR MULTIPLE QUBIT SYSTEMS
Lecture 4. QUANTUM MECHANICS FOR MULTIPLE QUBIT SYSTEMS 4.1 Multiple Qubits Next we consider a system of two qubits. If these were two classical bits, then there would be four possible states,, 1, 1, and
More informationarxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 21 Oct 2013
Genuine hidden quantum nonlocality Flavien Hirsch, 1 Marco Túlio Quintino, 1 Joseph Bowles, 1 and Nicolas Brunner 1, 1 Département de Physique Théorique, Université de Genève, 111 Genève, Switzerland H.H.
More informationBorromean Entanglement Revisited
Borromean Entanglement Revisited Ayumu SUGITA Abstract An interesting analogy between quantum entangled states and topological links was suggested by Aravind. In particular, he emphasized a connection
More informationNON HILBERTIAN QUANTUM MECHANICS ON THE FINITE GALOIS FIELD
1 BAO HUYNH 12524847 PHYSICS 517 QUANTUM MECHANICS II SPRING 2013 TERM PAPER NON HILBERTIAN QUANTUM MECHANICS ON THE FINITE GALOIS FIELD 2 Index table Section Page 1. Introduction 3 2. Algebraic construction
More informationarxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 14 Feb 2014
On the Reality of Observable Properties Shane Mansfield Quantum Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford arxiv:1306.3216v3 [quant-ph] 14 Feb 2014 October 15, 2018 Abstract This note
More informationCLASSIFICATION OF MAXIMALLY ENTANGLED STATES OF SPIN 1/2 PARTICLES
CLASSIFICATION OF MAXIMALLY ENTANGLED STATES OF SPIN 1/ PARTICLES S. Ghosh, G. Kar, and A. Roy Physics and Applied Mathematics Unit Indian Statistical Institute 03, B. T. Road Calcutta 700 035 India. E
More informationSpatial Locality: A hidden variable unexplored in entanglement experiments
Spatial Locality: A hidden variable unexplored in entanglement experiments Ramzi Suleiman a Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Abba Khoushy Avenue 199, Haifa 3498838, Israel & Department of
More informationDEEP METAPHYSICAL INDETERMINACY
The Philosophical Quarterly June 2010 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.672.x The Scots Philosophical Association and the University of St Andrews DEEP METAPHYSICAL INDETERMINACY BY BRADFORD SKOW A recent
More informationVariations on the Theme of the Greenberger± Horne± Zeilinger Proof
Foundations of Physics, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1999 Variations on the Theme of the Greenberger± Horne± Zeilinger Proof Lev Vaidman 1 Received August 18, 1998; revised December 15, 1998 Three arguments based on
More informationKOLMOGOROV s PROBABILITY THEORY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS
KOLMOGOROV s PROBABILITY THEORY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS D.A. Slavnov Department of Physics, Moscow State University, GSP-2 Moscow 119992, Russia. E-mail: slavnov@theory.sinp.msu.ru A connection between the
More informationIncompatibility Paradoxes
Chapter 22 Incompatibility Paradoxes 22.1 Simultaneous Values There is never any difficulty in supposing that a classical mechanical system possesses, at a particular instant of time, precise values of
More informationThe Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought-experiment and Bell s theorem
PHYS419 Lecture 0 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought-experiment and Bell s theorem 1 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought-experiment and Bell s theorem As first shown by Bell (1964), the force of the arguments
More informationA review on quantum teleportation based on: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen channels
JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY 57 VOLUME NUMBER DECEMBER 8 005 A review on quantum teleportation based on: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen channels Miri Shlomi
More informationDelayed Choice Paradox
Chapter 20 Delayed Choice Paradox 20.1 Statement of the Paradox Consider the Mach-Zehnder interferometer shown in Fig. 20.1. The second beam splitter can either be at its regular position B in where the
More informationQuantum correlations from wave-particle unity and locality: Resolution of the EPR puzzle
Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 5 no 3, 000 363 Quantum correlations from wave-particle unity and locality: Resolution of the EPR puzzle C. S. Unnikrishnan Gravitation Group, Tata Institute
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v4 17 Jan 2005
Understanding Popper s experiment Tabish Qureshi Department of Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-5, India An experiment proposed by Karl Popper is considered by many to be a crucial test of quantum
More informationA Re-Evaluation of Schrodinger s Cat Paradox
A Re-Evaluation of Schrodinger s Cat Paradox Wells Lucas Santo 5 December 2012 PL2293 Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics Professor Jonathan Bain 1 1 Introduction This paper is a re-examination of the famous
More informationarxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 25 Oct 2018
The measure of PBR s reality Sánchez-Kuntz, Natalia 1 and Nahmad-Achar, Eduardo 1 Institut für Theoretische Physik Universität Heidelberg Philosophenweg 16, D-6910 Heidelberg Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares
More informationON THE EINSTEIN PODOLSKY ROSEN PARADOX* I. Introduction
Physics Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 195 200, 1964 Physics Publishing Co. Printed in the United States ON THE EINSTEIN PODOLSKY ROSEN PARADOX* J. S. BELLt Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
More informationMax Planck, Nobel Prize in Physics and inventor of Quantum Mechanics said:
Max Planck, Nobel Prize in Physics and inventor of Quantum Mechanics said: As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of
More informationSpekkens Toy Model, Finite Field Quantum Mechanics, and the Role of Linearity arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 15 Mar 2019
Spekkens Toy Model, Finite Field Quantum Mechanics, and the Role of Linearity arxiv:903.06337v [quant-ph] 5 Mar 209 Lay Nam Chang, Djordje Minic, and Tatsu Takeuchi Department of Physics, Virginia Tech,
More informationA No-Go Result on Common Cause Approaches via Hardy s Paradox
A No-Go Result on Common Cause Approaches via Hardy s Paradox Katsuaki Higashi Abstract According to a conventional view, there exists no common-cause model of quantum correlations satisfying locality
More informationA Geometrical Model of Fermion Spin Correlations
EJTP 9, No. 27 (2012) 111 120 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics A Geometrical Model of Fermion Spin Correlations Robert A. Close Portland, OR, USA Received 6 February 2012, Accepted 16 July 2012,
More informationThe Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Handout Eight) between the microphysical and the macrophysical. The macrophysical world could be understood
The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Handout Eight) 1. The Copenhagen Interpretation Bohr interpreted quantum theory as showing that there is a fundamental partition in nature, between the microphysical
More informationA Bell Theorem Without Inequalities for Two Particles, Using Efficient Detectors. Daniel M. Greenberger City College of New York, New York, NY 10031
1 A Bell Theorem Without Inequalities for Two Particles, Using Efficient Detectors by Daniel M. Greenberger City College of New York, New York, NY 10031 Michael Horne Stonehill College, Easton, MA 02357
More informationFrom the Kochen-Specker theorem to noncontextuality inequalities without assuming determinism
From the Kochen-Specker theorem to noncontextuality inequalities without assuming determinism Ravi Kunjwal, IMSc, Chennai July 15, 2015 Quantum Physics and Logic 2015, Oxford (based on arxiv:1506.04150
More informationBell s Theorem. Ben Dribus. June 8, Louisiana State University
Bell s Theorem Ben Dribus Louisiana State University June 8, 2012 Introduction. Quantum Theory makes predictions that challenge intuitive notions of physical reality. Einstein and others were sufficiently
More informationQuotations from other works that I have written
Quotations from other works that I have written (Including supporting documentation from other sources) The following five groups of quotations are in numerical order of what I consider to be of the greatest
More informationEntanglement of projection and a new class of quantum erasers
PHYSICAL REVIEW A VOLUME 60, NUMBER 2 AUGUST 1999 Entanglement of projection and a new class of quantum erasers Robert Garisto BNL Theory Group, Building 510a, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New
More informationarxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 20 Jan 2016
arxiv:1508.01601v3 [quant-ph] 0 Jan 016 Two-player conflicting interest Bayesian games and Bell nonlocality Haozhen Situ April 14, 018 Abstract Nonlocality, one of the most remarkable aspects of quantum
More informationResilience of realism-based nonlocality to local disturbance
Resilience of realism-based nonlocality to local disturbance V. S. Gomes and R. M. Angelo Department of Physics, Federal University of Paraná, P.O. Box 19044, 81531-980 Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil Employing
More informationComments on There is no axiomatic system for the. quantum theory. Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) J.
Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Comments on There is no axiomatic system for the quantum theory J. Acacio de Barros the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract
More informationarxiv: v4 [quant-ph] 28 Feb 2018
Tripartite entanglement detection through tripartite quantum steering in one-sided and two-sided device-independent scenarios arxiv:70086v [quant-ph] 8 Feb 08 C Jebaratnam,, Debarshi Das,, Arup Roy, 3
More informationA Stronger Bell Argument for Quantum Non-Locality
A Stronger Bell Argument for Quantum Non-Locality Paul M. Näger Department of Philosophy University of Bremen, Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 7, D-28359 Bremen, Germany paul.naeger@uni-bremen.de 15th August 2013
More informationQuantum Theory Based On Information And Entropy
University of Vienna Faculty of Physics Boltzmanngasse 5, 1090 Wien Quantum Theory Based On Information And Entropy Author: Martin Pimon Supervisor: Ao. Univ.-Prof. i.r. Dr. Reinhold Bertlmann July 31,
More informationThe Two-State Vector Formalism
arxiv:0706.1347v1 [quant-ph] 10 Jun 007 The Two-State Vector Formalism February 1, 013 The two-state vector formalism (TSVF) [1] is a time-symmetric description of the standard quantum mechanics originated
More informationarxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 17 Sep 2018
Resilience of realism-based nonlocality to local disturbance V. S. Gomes and R. M. Angelo Department of Physics, Federal University of Paraná, P.O. Box 19044, 81531-980 Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil Employing
More informationTwo-State Vector Formalism
802 Two-State Vector Formalism Secondary Literature 9. E. Merzbacher: Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York 1970) 10. S. Gasiorowicz: Quantum Physics (Wiley, New York 1996) 11. A. Sommerfeld: Lectures
More informationIt From Bit Or Bit From Us?
It From Bit Or Bit From Us? Majid Karimi Research Group on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Information Department of Chemistry, Sharif University of Technology On its 125 th anniversary, July 1 st, 2005
More informationPhotons uncertainty removes Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Abstract
quant-ph/0202175 Photons uncertainty removes Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox Daniele Tommasini Departamento de Física Aplicada, Área de Física Teórica, Universidad de Vigo, 32004 Ourense, Spain (Dated:
More informationOn a proposal for Quantum Signalling
On a proposal for Quantum Signalling Padmanabhan Murali Pune, India pmurali1000@gmail.com Ver1 : 21st Nov 2015 Abstract Present understanding of non-possibility of Quantum communication rests on analysis
More informationQuantum measurements and Kolmogorovian probability theory
Quantum measurements and Kolmogorovian probability theory D.A.Slavnov arxiv:quant-ph/0301027v1 8 Jan 2003 Department of Physics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119992, Russia. E- mail: slavnov@goa.bog.msu.ru
More informationObjective probability-like things with and without objective indeterminism
Journal reference: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (2007) 626 Objective probability-like things with and without objective indeterminism László E. Szabó Theoretical Physics Research
More informationWhat is it like to be a quantum observer? And what does it imply about the nature of consciousness?
What is it like to be a quantum observer? And what does it imply about the nature of consciousness? Shan Gao Research Center for Philosophy of Science and Technology, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006,
More informationJ = L + S. to this ket and normalize it. In this way we get expressions for all the kets
Lecture 3 Relevant sections in text: 3.7, 3.9 Total Angular Momentum Eigenvectors How are the total angular momentum eigenvectors related to the original product eigenvectors (eigenvectors of L z and S
More informationWhat does it feel like to be in a quantum superposition?
What does it feel like to be in a quantum superposition? Shan Gao Institute for the History of Natural Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China. E-mail: gaoshan@ihns.ac.cn. December
More informationIs Entanglement Sufficient to Enable Quantum Speedup?
arxiv:107.536v3 [quant-ph] 14 Sep 01 Is Entanglement Sufficient to Enable Quantum Speedup? 1 Introduction The mere fact that a quantum computer realises an entangled state is ususally concluded to be insufficient
More informationarxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 26 Apr 2013
Onthological models predictively inequivalent to quantum theory GianCarlo Ghirardi Department of Physics, University of Trieste, and the Abdus Salam ICTP, Trieste, Italy Raffaele Romano Department of Mathematics,
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v4 5 Dec 2000
Decoherence and Planck s Radiation Law Italo Vecchi Bahnhofstr. 33-8600 Duebendorf - Switzerland email: vecchi@isthar.com arxiv:quant-ph/0002084v4 5 Dec 2000 In the present note the foundations of the
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v1 14 Sep 1999
Position-momentum local realism violation of the Hardy type arxiv:quant-ph/99942v1 14 Sep 1999 Bernard Yurke 1, Mark Hillery 2, and David Stoler 1 1 Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill,
More informationThe Two Quantum Measurement Theories and the Bell-Kochen-Specker Paradox
International Journal of Electronic Engineering Computer Science Vol. 1, No. 1, 2016, pp. 40-44 http://www.aiscience.org/journal/ijeecs The Two Quantum Measurement Theories the Bell-Kochen-Specker Paradox
More informationLogical independence and quantum randomness
New Journal of Physics The open access journal for physics Logical independence and quantum randomness T Paterek 1,3,5, J Kofler 1,2, R Prevedel 2, P Klimek 2,4, M Aspelmeyer 1,2, A Zeilinger 1,2 and Č
More informationPHY305: Notes on Entanglement and the Density Matrix
PHY305: Notes on Entanglement and the Density Matrix Here follows a short summary of the definitions of qubits, EPR states, entanglement, the density matrix, pure states, mixed states, measurement, and
More informationThe Consistency of Quantum Mechanics Implies Its Non-Determinism arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 19 Oct 2010
The Consistency of Quantum Mechanics Implies Its Non-Determinism arxiv:1010.4020v1 [quant-ph] 19 Oct 2010 Iegor Reznikoff Professor Emeritus, Departement de Philosophie, Université de Paris-Ouest, 92001
More informationBell s Theorem...What?! Entanglement and Other Puzzles
Bell s Theorem...What?! Entanglement and Other Puzzles Kyle Knoepfel 27 February 2008 University of Notre Dame Bell s Theorem p.1/49 Some Quotes about Quantum Mechanics Erwin Schrödinger: I do not like
More informationHugh Everett III s Many Worlds
236 My God, He Plays Dice! Hugh Everett III s Many Worlds Many Worlds 237 Hugh Everett III s Many Worlds Hugh Everett III was one of John Wheeler s most famous graduate students. Others included Richard
More informationCausation and EPR. But, alas, this hypothesis is mathematically inconsistent with the results of the case b runs, those runs
As Mermin remarks at the end of Quantum Mysteries for Anyone, the device he describes in that paper (the Mermin contraption ) is a direct descendent of a thought experiment described in a paper written
More informationA single quantum cannot be teleported
1 quant-ph/010060 A single quantum cannot be teleported Daniele Tommasini Departamento de Física Aplicada, Universidad de Vigo, 3004 Ourense, Spain Due to the Heisemberg uncertainty principle, it is impossible
More informationA Classification of Hidden-Variable Properties
A Classification of Hidden-Variable Properties Joint work with Adam Brandenburger Noson S. Yanofsky Brooklyn College and The Graduate Center, CUNY noson@sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu Quantum Logic Inspired by
More informationPopper School Methodological Disproof of Quantum Logic
Popper School Methodological Disproof of Quantum Logic Steve Meyer Tachyon Design Automation San Francisco, CA 94111 smeyer@tdl.com Presented August 6, 2015 CLMPS Helsinki Slides and addition references
More informationOn a proposal for Quantum Signalling
On a proposal for Quantum Signalling Padmanabhan Murali Pune, India pmurali1000@gmail.com Ver1 : 21st Nov 2015 Abstract Present understanding of non-possibility of Quantum communication rests on analysis
More information